IETF general discussion

Alessandro Vesely | 18 Jun 2012 12:30

Picon

Re: Protocol Definition

On 5 Jan 2012, todd glassey <tglassey <at> earthlink.net> wrote
> On 1/5/2012 6:48 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: 
>>  
>> (One can quibble about the difference between algorithm and
>> program. An algorithm is a component of a program.
>  
> The program is the code-based implementation of the alg? 
>  
>> The distinction is relevant here because a protocol is typically
>> a complete mechanism rather than being a component of the
>> mechanisms.
>  
> I.e. "A complete method of doing something"... 

I noticed no disagreement between "method" and "mechanism", at the
time.  In retrospect, those two terms might seem to allude to a
different depth of semantic explanations.  Rereading that thread, I
find that the same ambiguity holds for algorithm descriptions:  one
can give a full description (or coding) of, say, sqrt, without
actually saying that the square of the result will match its argument
up to some rounding error.  The specification does not have to relate
the underlying mathematical abstraction.

Protocol specifications, especially when dealing with policies, do not
have to describe the exact meaning of the relevant tokens.  To do that
would often look like mandating a state or a reaction, neither of
which is needed to ensure interoperability.  In fact, the protocol
just has to ensure that a policy can be transmitted correctly.  Many
would rather leave a policy token underspecified than get involved in
its details.

(Continue reading)

Abdussalam Baryun | 18 Jun 2012 15:18

Picon

Re: Protocol Definition

IMO the important issue in any definition is to include how the IETF
defines protocol,
this may be find in some RFCs :)

The IP is the main protocol, and all protocols in IETF are based on IP
and Internet.

AB
++++

On 5 Jan 2012, todd glassey <tglassey at earthlink.net> wrote
> On 1/5/2012 6:48 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>> (One can quibble about the difference between algorithm and
>> program. An algorithm is a component of a program.
>
> The program is the code-based implementation of the alg?
>
>> The distinction is relevant here because a protocol is typically
>> a complete mechanism rather than being a component of the
>> mechanisms.
>
> I.e. "A complete method of doing something"...

I noticed no disagreement between "method" and "mechanism", at the
time.  In retrospect, those two terms might seem to allude to a
different depth of semantic explanations.  Rereading that thread, I
find that the same ambiguity holds for algorithm descriptions:  one
can give a full description (or coding) of, say, sqrt, without
actually saying that the square of the result will match its argument

(Continue reading)

Abdussalam Baryun | 21 Jun 2012 22:00

Picon

Re: Protocol Definition

I got help from a friend, to amend the definition statement to:

All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.

AB
++++
<Defining any protocol has to consider somehow it's networks>

On 6/18/12, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO the important issue in any definition is to include how the IETF
> defines protocol,
> this may be find in some RFCs :)
>
> The IP is the main protocol, and all protocols in IETF are based on IP
> and Internet.
>
> AB

Randy Bush | 22 Jun 2012 04:42

Re: Protocol Definition

> All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.

what a laugh.  try, for example,

   RFC 826

randy

Abdussalam Baryun | 22 Jun 2012 05:57

Picon

Re: Protocol Definition

On 6/22/12, Randy Bush <randy <at> psg.com> wrote:
>> All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.
>
>
>    RFC 826

read in first page

[The purpose of this RFC is to present a method of Converting
Protocol Addresses (e.g., IP addresses) to Local Network
Addresses (e.g., Ethernet addresses). This is a issue of general
concern in the ARPA Internet community at this time. The
method proposed here is presented for your consideration and
comment. This is not the specification of a Internet Standard.]

>
> randy
>

Joel jaeggli | 22 Jun 2012 07:16

Re: Protocol Definition

On 6/21/12 20:57 , Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> On 6/22/12, Randy Bush <randy <at> psg.com> wrote:
>>> All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.
>>
>>
>>    RFC 826
> 
> read in first page
> 
> [The purpose of this RFC is to present a method of Converting
> Protocol Addresses (e.g., IP addresses) to Local Network
> Addresses (e.g., Ethernet addresses). This is a issue of general
> concern in the ARPA Internet community at this time. The
> method proposed here is presented for your consideration and
> comment. This is not the specification of a Internet Standard.]

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5921

   This document specifies an architectural framework for the
   application of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) to the
   construction of packet-switched transport networks.  It describes a
   common set of protocol functions -- the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
   TP) -- that supports the operational models and capabilities typical
   of such networks, including signaled or explicitly provisioned
   bidirectional connection-oriented paths, protection and restoration
   mechanisms, comprehensive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
   (OAM) functions, and network operation in the absence of a dynamic
   control plane or IP forwarding support.
> 
>>

(Continue reading)

Melinda Shore | 22 Jun 2012 07:24

Picon

Re: Protocol Definition

On 6/21/12 9:16 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 6/21/12 20:57 , Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>> On 6/22/12, Randy Bush<randy <at> psg.com>  wrote:
>>>> All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.

[ ... ]

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5921

I dunno - once you throw "based on the Internet" in there pretty
much anything goes.  Which is not to say that I think his definition
of "protocol" is helpful, since it does not appear to actually *be*
a definition.

But anyway, I was surprised by some of things for which I haven't
been able to find a definition in IETF documents - for example,
"state," although that's an extremely difficult term for which to do
an exhaustive search and it's very likely out there but hard to find.

Melinda

Tony Finch | 22 Jun 2012 19:17

Picon

Re: Protocol Definition

Randy Bush <randy <at> psg.com> wrote:

> > All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.
>
> what a laugh.  try, for example, RFC 826

Perhaps a better example is RFC 6325.

Tony.
--

-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot <at> dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Cromarty: Northeasterly backing westerly, 5 or 6. Moderate or rough.
Occasional rain. Moderate or poor.

Donald Eastlake | 22 Jun 2012 19:51

Picon

Re: Protocol Definition

How about RFC 1661.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Tony Finch <dot <at> dotat.at> wrote:
> Randy Bush <randy <at> psg.com> wrote:
>
>> > All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.
>>
>> what a laugh.  try, for example, RFC 826
>
> Perhaps a better example is RFC 6325.
>
> Tony.
> --
> f.anthony.n.finch  <dot <at> dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
> Cromarty: Northeasterly backing westerly, 5 or 6. Moderate or rough.
> Occasional rain. Moderate or poor.

tglassey | 24 Jun 2012 15:20

Picon

Re: Protocol Definition

On 6/22/2012 10:17 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Randy Bush <randy <at> psg.com> wrote:
>
>>> All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.
>> what a laugh.  try, for example, RFC 826
> Perhaps a better example is RFC 6325.
>
> Tony.
Try this

"The IETFis and open and fair framework  produces standards for use in 
both networking and internetworking services for global communication" 
and the reasoning is that when ITU and other orgs like it were formed 
there was not Internetworking or Local Area Networks and so the IETF was 
formed to emerge the need to facilitate standards in these two key areas 
which other groups like ITU and IEEE with the underlying 802 work were 
not providing.

--

-- 
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

Joe Touch | 19 Jun 2012 00:44

Picon

Re: Protocol Definition

On 6/18/2012 3:30 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
...
> I noticed no disagreement between "method" and "mechanism", at the
> time.  In retrospect, those two terms might seem to allude to a
> different depth of semantic explanations.  Rereading that thread, I
> find that the same ambiguity holds for algorithm descriptions:  one
> can give a full description (or coding) of, say, sqrt, without
> actually saying that the square of the result will match its argument
> up to some rounding error.  The specification does not have to relate
> the underlying mathematical abstraction.

This is the difference between a behavioral description and a procedural 
description.

Behavioral treats a system as a "black box", and defines the system as a 
function and how it transforms its input into its output.

Procedural specifies the particular steps taken inside the box.

Procedural is more specific than behavioral:

	behavioral = any of a number of ways of calculating SQRT
	procedural = one specific algorithm for calculating SQRT

Semantics is a completely different thing - the assignment of "meaning" 
to symbols. Neither procedural nor behavioral descriptions need to 
include semantic descriptions.

> Protocol specifications, especially when dealing with policies, do not

(Continue reading)

Alessandro Vesely | 19 Jun 2012 13:19

Picon

Re: Protocol Definition

On Tue 19/Jun/2012 00:44:25 +0200 Joe Touch wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 3:30 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> ...
>> one can give a full description (or coding) of, say, sqrt, without
>> actually saying that the square of the result will match its argument
>> up to some rounding error.  The specification does not have to relate
>> the underlying mathematical abstraction.
> 
> This is the difference between a behavioral description and a
> procedural description.
> 
> Behavioral treats a system as a "black box", and defines the system as
> a function and how it transforms its input into its output.
> 
> Procedural specifies the particular steps taken inside the box.
> 
> Procedural is more specific than behavioral:
> 
>     behavioral = any of a number of ways of calculating SQRT
>     procedural = one specific algorithm for calculating SQRT
> 
> Semantics is a completely different thing - the assignment of
> "meaning" to symbols. Neither procedural nor behavioral descriptions
> need to include semantic descriptions.

We agree that including semantic descriptions is optional.  But what
is better?  For SQRT, I'd hold that a short, crispy reference to the
theoretical background may be useful and wouldn't harm.  For the
general case, I'm not sure.

(Continue reading)

Return

Return to gmane.ietf.general.

Search Archive

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane